Storyof the

Western RangeAdelaide group 2: Thienhuong Do, Thitam Duong,

Minhthuan Nguyen. October 2012

2

Room for possible collaboration

• Background: The case represents the effort of and marginal gains of reformers in disturbing the long standing federal grazing system.

• Recommendations: Voluntary collaborative ventures can have big effects in long term issues

• Implication: For the long run:– Ranchers would be ensured the number of stock.– Range rehabilitation is secured.

3

What should environmentalists be doing

if they want to bring about changes

in grazing on the western range?

Question to consider

4

1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed but

public domain lands of the West were already

depleted

Story of the west grazing

1870s-1880s: Stockman spread to west range. Cattle population rocketed from estimated 3mil to 26 mil

1990s: focusing on "Ecosystem function, Campaign Voluntary Grazing Permit Buy Out Act

2005: VGPBOA Campaign purchased permits covering 2.5 mil acres

2009 Omnibus Public Land Mnagement Act

2000s Widespread approach that involves collaborating with ranchers to enhane ecological values on their land

1978: PRIA passed (rancher- approved formula, keep fee quite stable

1906: Federal regulation of grazing began: permit and fee

1975-1976: The94th Congress and House released the bill supporting ranchers

5

Long lasting Fight

• Economic values and strong political back upo Ranchers focus on:

• Using more public lands• More permit and less fee• Increase number of cattle• Merging their motives with historic image: cowboy

o Politicians (congressional allies): back up the ranchers• Range Sustainability

o Ecosystem depleted • Eroded soil• Destroyed watershed• Native plants• Wildlife movement• Recovery

6

• We approach the case from the viewpoints of both sides: environmentalists and ranchers.

• We weighed our IP (range sustainability, economic values, media and public attention, political power)

• The alternative which has the highest aggregated score will be our decision.

Our Decision is…

7

Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholders Groups Representatives GoalsLand Managers • Forest Service

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• Division of Grazing

• Want to make changes but stick to the past regulations

• In most cases, back up the ranchers

Policy makers • President • Congress

• Ease the tension between ranchers and environmentalists

Ranchers • Stockmen and public land ranchers, appointed officer, senator came from ranching families

• Low fee with built-in profit• More public land use• Extend the cattle

Environmentalists • Environmentalists • Public and other supporters

• Restore the ecosystem of the range• Reduce the number of cattle in the

range• Reform the regulation regarding

the permit and fee

8

More grazing or range?

Criteria Justifications Metrics

Economic values Ranchers focus on using more public lands, more permit and less fee, increase number of cattle.

- Number of cattle- Number of died cattle- Number of permittees- Fee built in profit

Political Power The congressional allies support ranchers due to past foundation and their interests. Forest Service and BLM needs appropriation to operate.

- Number of bills passed- Budget allocated

Range sustainability The range becomes deteriorated due to the overgrazing and not effective measures to conserve.

- Number of cattle- Rainfall- Number of wildlife and plants- Acres of land (grazing, conservation

easements)- Quality of soil- Number of endangered sage

grouse

Media and public attention

It is important to arouse more public attention to the range condition.Involvement of mass media plays key role in disseminating information.

- Number of news coverage (publication, review, articles..)

- Number of people participated campaigns

(Our analysis based on the following indices of performance)

9

• Existing fee covers 37% of BLM and 30% of Forest Service admin cost; cost 144mil$, benefit 21mil$ Alternative 1

• 98% arid lands in the west have gone desertification (1970s) Alternative 2

• Malpai Borderlands Group established in 1990s. New grazing package introduced (Aug 1995) Alternative 3

Data talks

10

Analysis of Alternatives

• Alternative 1: Impose higher AUM and cut subsidies on

grazing

• Alternative 2: Allow more grazing and expand the range for

grazing• Alternative 3: Promote voluntary collaborative ventures

between environmentalists and ranchers

11

Criteria

Range Sustainability

Economic Values

Media & Public

Political Power

Low fee. Number of permittee/ cattles/ profit ? etc?

Quality of soil? Number of endangered sage grouse? Rainfall? etc

Number of bills passedBudget allocated ?

News coverage and Impact?

12

MAUT Analysis

13

Recommendations

We should promote voluntary collaborative ventures between environmentalists and ranchers

(Alternative 3)

Sensitivity Analysis

• Ranchers may oppose the Packages and collaboration in the name of intangeble benefits and value (dignity, cultures, family traditions).

• Solutions that can neutralize economic benefits are a must, however a cultural approach and friendly policies to call for collaboration will bring best results.

• Collaboration needs deep understand about the West cultures and people• Carefully identify Key influencer and Key opinion leaders to enhance

impact of message.• To cope with issues that have existed for a long time, environmentalists

should be resilient, persistent and act on the long term view.

14

15

Thank you!